PHOENIX: They flaunted their participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol on social media and then, apparently realizing they were in legal trouble, rushed to delete evidence of it, authorities say. Now their attempts to cover up their role in the deadly siege are likely to come back to haunt them in court.
An Associated Press review of court records has found that at least 49 defendants are accused of trying to erase incriminating photos, videos and texts from phones or social media accounts documenting their conduct as a pro-Donald Trump mob stormed Congress and briefly interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.
Experts say the efforts to scrub the social media accounts reveal a desperate willingness to manipulate evidence once these people realized they were in hot water. And, they say, it can serve as powerful proof of people’s consciousness of guilt and can make it harder to negotiate plea deals and seek leniency at sentencing.
“It makes them look tricky, makes them look sneaky,” said Gabriel J. Chin, who teaches criminal law at the University of California, Davis.
One such defendant is James Breheny, a member of the Oath Keepers extremist group, who bragged in texts to others about being inside the Capitol during the insurrection, authorities say. An associate instructed Breheny, in an encrypted message two days after the riot, to “delete all pictures, messages and get a new phone,” according to court documents.
That same day, the FBI said, Breheny shut down his Facebook account, where he had photos that he taken during the riot and complained the government had grown tyrannical. “The People’s Duty is to replace that Government with one they agree with,” Breheny wrote on Facebook on Jan. 6 in an exchange about the riot. “I’m all ears. What’s our options???”
Breheney’s lawyer, Harley Breite, said his client never obstructed the riot investigation or destroyed evidence, and that Breheny didn’t know when he shut down account that his content would be considered evidence.
Breite rejected the notion that Breheny might have been able to recognize, in the days immediately after Jan. 6 when the riot dominated news coverage, that the attack was a serious situation that could put Breheny’s liberty at risk.
“You can’t delete evidence if you don’t know you are being charged with anything,” Breite said.
Other defendants who have not been accused of destroying evidence still engaged in exchanges with others about deleting content, according to court documents.
The FBI said one woman who posted video and comments showing she was inside the Capitol during the attack later decided not to restore her new phone with her iCloud content — a move that authorities suspect was aimed at preventing them from uncovering the material.
In another case, authorities say screenshots from a North Carolina man’s deleted Facebook posts contradicted his claim during an interview with an FBI agent that he didn’t intend on disrupting the Electoral College certification.
Erasing digital content isn’t as easy as deleting content from phones, removing social media posts or shutting down accounts. Investigators have been able to retrieve the digital content by requesting it from social media companies, even after accounts are shut down.
Posts made on Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms are recoverable for a certain period of time, and authorities routinely ask those companies to preserve the records until they get court orders to view the posts, said Adam Scott Wandt, a public policy professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who trains law enforcement on cyber-based investigations.
Authorities also have other avenues for investigating whether someone has tried to delete evidence.
Even when a person removes content from an account, authorities may still get access to it if it had been backed up on a cloud server. People who aren’t involved in a crime yet were sent incriminating videos or photos may end up forwarding them to investigators. Also, metadata embedded in digital content can show whether it has been modified or deleted.
“You can’t do it,” said Joel Hirschhorn, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami who is not involved in Capitol riot cases. “The metadata will do them in every time.”
Only a handful of the more than 500 people across the US who have been arrested in the riot have actually been charged with tampering for deleting incriminating material from their phones or Facebook accounts.
They include several defendants in the sweeping case against members and associates of the Oath Keepers extremist group, who are accused of conspiring to block the certification of the vote. In one instance, a defendant instructed another to “make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and burned,” authorities say.
But even if it does not result in more charges, deleting evidence will make it difficult for those defendants to get much benefit at sentencing for accepting responsibility for their actions, said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
Some lawyers might argue their clients removed the content to lessen the social impact that the attack had on their families and show they do not support what had occurred during the riot. But she said that argument has limits.
“The words ‘self-serving’ will come to mind,” Levenson said. “That’s what the prosecutors will argue — you removed it because all of a sudden, you have to face the consequences of your actions.”
Matthew Mark Wood, who acknowledged deleting content from his phone and Facebook account that showed presence in the Capitol during the riot, told an FBI agent that he did not intend on disrupting the Electoral College certification.
But investigators say screenshots of two of his deleted Facebook posts tell a different story.
In the posts, Wood reveled in rioters sending “those politicians running” and declared that he had stood up against a tyrannical government in the face of a stolen election, the FBI said in court records. “When diplomacy doesn’t work and your message has gone undelivered, it shouldn’t surprise you when we revolt,” Wood wrote. His lawyer did not return a call seeking comment.
Even though she is not accused of deleting content that showed she was inside the Capitol during the riot, one defendant told her father that she was not going to restore her new phone with her iCloud backup about three weeks after the riot, the FBI said.
“Stay off the clouds!” the father warned his daughter, according to authorities. “They are how they are screwing with us.”
US Capitol rioters accused of erasing content from social media, phones
https://arab.news/8w65h
US Capitol rioters accused of erasing content from social media, phones
- Experts say the efforts to scrub the social media accounts reveal a desperate willingness to manipulate evidence once these people realized they were in hot water
- Only a handful of the more than 500 people across the US who have been arrested in the riot have actually been charged
Journalist-turned-MP faces demeaning attacks as Lebanese parliament votes for president
- The heated exchange led Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to instruct his deputy, Elias Bou Saab, to escort Aoun out of the session
DUBAI: Lebanese journalist-turned-politician Paula Yacoubian was interupted and verbally attacked by MP Salim Aoun during a voting session to elect a president after a two-year power vaccum.
A video broadcast from inside Baabda Palace shows Yacoubian, during the voting session, accusing some MPs of using the constitution as a pretext to obstruct the session, asserting that the real reason was the refusal of some to allow Lebanese army commander Joseph Aoun to become president.
This accusation sparked an objection from Salim Aoun, who retorted: “This is out of order. Paula, you covered for a kidnapped prime minister and now you’re lecturing about virtue. You’re the biggest liar, and this is shamelessness.”
Yacoubian responded angrily, saying: “Shame on you!”
The argument escalated, with Aoun using offensive language to attack Yacoubian.
The heated exchange led Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to instruct his deputy, Elias Bou Saab, to escort Aoun out of the session to resolve the dispute.
Lebanon’s parliament on Thursday again failed to elect a president, after 12 previous attempts failed to choose a successor to former President Michel Aoun, whose term ended in October 2022.
Joseph Aoun, the leading candidate, failed to muster enough support — getting only 71 votes, or 15 short of the required 86.
As a sitting army commander, Joseph Aoun is technically barred from becoming president by Lebanon’s constitution. The ban has been waived before, but it means that Aoun faces additional procedural hurdles.
Australia frets over Meta halt to US fact-checking
- Australia has frequently irked social media giants with its efforts to restrict the distribution of false information or content it deems dangerous
- Late last year, the country passed laws to ban under-16s from signing up for social media platforms
SYDNEY: Australia is deeply concerned by Meta’s decision to scrap US fact-check operations on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, a senior minister said Thursday.
The government – which has been at the forefront of efforts to rein in social media giants – was worried about a surge of false information spreading online, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said.
“Misinformation and disinformation is very dangerous, and we’ve seen it really kind of explode in the last few years,” Chalmers told national broadcaster ABC.
“And it’s a very damaging development, damaging for our democracy. It can be damaging for people’s mental health to get the wrong information on social media, and so of course we are concerned about that.”
Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday the group would “get rid of fact-checkers” and replace them with community-based posts, starting in the United States.
Chalmers said the decision was “very concerning.”
The government had invested in trusted Australian news providers such as the ABC and national newswire AAP to ensure people had reliable sources for information, he said.
Disinformation and misinformation had become “a bigger and bigger part of our media, particularly our social media,” the treasurer said.
Australia has frequently irked social media giants, notably Elon Musk’s X, with its efforts to restrict the distribution of false information or content it deems dangerous.
Late last year, the country passed laws to ban under-16s from signing up for social media platforms. Offenders face fines of up to A$50 million ($32.5 million) for “systemic breaches.”
But in November, a lack of support in parliament forced the government to ditch plans to fine social media companies if they fail to stem the spread of misinformation.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Wednesday he stood by the ban on children’s access to social media because of the impact it had on their mental health.
Asked about Meta’s fact-checking retreat, Albanese told reporters: “I say to social media they have a social responsibility and they should fulfil it.”
Australian group Digital Rights Watch said Meta had made a “terrible decision,” accusing it of acting in clear deference to incoming US president Donald Trump.
AFP currently works in 26 languages with Facebook’s fact-checking program.
Facebook pays to use fact checks from around 80 organizations globally on the platform, as well as on WhatsApp and Instagram.
Australian fact-checking operation AAP FactCheck said its contract with Meta in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific was not impacted by the group’s US decision.
“Independent fact-checkers are a vital safeguard against the spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation that threatens to undermine free democratic debate in Australia and aims to manipulate public opinion,” said AAP chief executive Lisa Davies.
CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network
- US Navy veteran Zachary Young blames CNN for destroying his business when it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover
NEW YORK: At a particularly inopportune time for legacy media and CNN, the news outlet is on trial in Florida this week, accused of defaming a Navy veteran involved in rescuing endangered Afghans from that country when the US ended its involvement there in 2021.
The veteran, Zachary Young, blames CNN for destroying his business when it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover.
In a broader sense, the case puts the news media on the stand in journalism critic Donald Trump’s home state weeks before he’s due to begin his second term as president, and on the same day Facebook’s parent introduced a Trump-friendly policy of backing off fact checks. Young’s attorney, Kyle Roche, leaned into the press’ unpopularity in his opening arguments on Tuesday.
“You’re going to have an opportunity to do something significant in this trial,” Roche told jurors in Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit Courts in Panama City on Tuesday. “You’re going to have an opportunity to send a message to mainstream media. You’re going to have an opportunity to change an industry.”
That’s the fear. Said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota: “Everybody in the news media is on trial in this case.”
Actual defamation trials are rare in this country
Defamation trials are actually rare in the United States, in part because strong constitutional protections for the press make proving libel difficult. From the media’s standpoint, taking a case to a judge or jury is a risk many executives don’t want to take.
Rather than defend statements that George Stephanopoulos made about Trump last spring, ABC News last month agreed to make the former president’s libel lawsuit go away by paying him $15 million toward his presidential library. In the end, ABC parent Walt Disney Co. concluded an ongoing fight against Trump wasn’t worth it, win or lose.
In the most high-profile libel case in recent years, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million on the day the trial was due to start in 2023 to settle the company’s claims of inaccurate reporting in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
The Young case concerns a segment that first aired on Jake Tapper’s program on Nov. 11, 2021, about extraction efforts in Afghanistan. Young had built a business helping such efforts, and advertised his services on LinkedIn to sponsors with funding who could pay for such evacuation.
He subsequently helped four separate organizations — Audible, Bloomberg, a charity called H.E.R.O. Inc. and a Berlin-based NGO called CivilFleet Support eV — get more than a dozen people out of Afghanistan, according to court papers. He said he did not market to — or take money from — individual Afghans.
Yet Young’s picture was shown as part of CNN story that talked about a “black market” where Afghans were charged $10,000 or more to get family members out of danger.
The plaintiff says the story’s reference to ‘black market’ damaged him
To Young, the “black market” label implied some sort of criminality, and he did nothing illegal. “It’s devastating if you’re labeled a criminal all over the world,” Young testified on Tuesday.
CNN said in court papers that Young’s case amounts to “defamation by implication,” and that he hadn’t actually been accused of nefarious acts. The initial story he complained about didn’t even mention Young until three minutes in, CNN lawyer David Axelrod argued on Tuesday.
Five months after the story aired, Young complained about it, and CNN issued an on-air statement that its use of the phrase “black market” was wrong. “We did not intend to suggest that Mr. Young participated in a black market. We regret the error. And to Mr. Young, we apologize.”
That didn’t prevent a defamation lawsuit, and the presiding judge, William S. Henry, denied CNN’s request that it be dismissed. CNN, in a statement, said that “when all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor.”
Axelrod argued on Tuesday that CNN’s reporting was tough, fair and accurate. He told the jury that they will hear no witnesses who will say they thought less of Young or wouldn’t hire him because of the story — in other words, no one to back up his contention that it was so damaging to his business and life.
Yet much like Fox was publicly hurt in the Dominion case by internal communications about Trump and the network’s coverage, some unflattering revelations about CNN’s operations will likely become part of the trial. They include internal messages where CNN’s reporter, Alex Marquardt, says unflattering and profane things about Young. A CNN editor was also revealed on messages to suggest that a Marquardt story on the topic was “full of holes,” Roche said.
“At the end of the day, there was no one at CNN who was willing to stand up for the truth,” Roche said. “Theater prevailed.”
Axelrod, who shares a name with a longtime Democratic political operative and CNN commentator, contended that the give and take was part of a rigorous journalistic process putting the video segment and subsequent printed stories together. “Many experienced journalists put eyes on these stories,” he said.
It’s still going to be difficult for CNN to go through. The network, with television ratings at historic lows, doesn’t need the trouble.
“At a moment of wider vilification and disparagement of the press, there is every reason to believe this will be weaponized, even if CNN prevails,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah law school and expert on libel law.
The case is putting a media organization and its key players on the stand in a very public way, which is something people don’t usually see.
“I always dread any kind of libel cases because the likelihood that something bad will come out of it is very high,” Minnesota’s Kirtley said. “This is not a great time to be a libel defendant if you’re in the news media. If we ever did have the support of the public, it has seriously eroded over the past few years.”
Israeli military tightens media rules over war crimes prosecution concern
- Under the new rules, media interviewing soldiers of the rank of colonel and under will not be able to display their full names or faces, similar to the rules that already exist for pilots, an Israeli military spokesperson says
JERUSALEM: The Israeli military placed new restrictions on media coverage of soldiers on active combat duty amid growing concern at the risk of legal action against reservists traveling abroad over allegations of involvement in war crimes in Gaza.
The move came after an Israeli reservist vacationing in Brazil left the country abruptly when a Brazilian judge ordered federal police to open an investigation following allegations from a pro-Palestinian group that he had committed war crimes while serving in Gaza.
Under the new rules, media interviewing soldiers of the rank of colonel and under will not be able to display their full names or faces, similar to the rules that already exist for pilots and members of special forces units, Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesperson told reporters.
The interviewees must not be linked to a specific combat event they participated in.
“This is our new guideline to protect our soldiers and to make sure they are safe from these types of incident hosted by anti-Israel activists around the world,” Shoshani said.
He said that under existing military rules, soldiers were already not supposed to post videos and other images from war zones on social media “even though that’s never perfect and we have a large army.” There were also long-standing rules and guidelines for soldiers traveling abroad, he said.
Shoshani said activist groups, such as the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation, which pushed for the action in Brazil, were “connecting the dots” between soldiers who posted material from Gaza and then posted other photos and videos of themselves while on holiday abroad.
Last year, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a Hamas leader, Ibrahim Al-Masri, over alleged war crimes in Gaza, drawing outrage in Israel.
Shoshani said there had been “a handful” of cases where reservists traveling abroad had been targeted, in addition to the case in Brazil, all of which had been started by activist groups pushing authorities for an investigation.
“They didn’t open an investigation, they didn’t press charges or anything like that,” he said.
‘Offensive’ Muslim fintech ads banned in UK for showing burning banknotes
- Posters by Wahed Invest were banned by Advertising Standards Authority after agency received 75 complaints
LONDON: Adverts by Muslim fintech company Wahed Invest have been banned in the UK for featuring burning banknotes, which the country’s advertising watchdog deemed “offensive.”
The New York-based investment platform, which targets the Muslim community, ran a series of posters across London’s transport system in September and October.
The ads showed US dollar and euro banknotes on fire alongside slogans such as “Join the money revolution” and “Withdraw from Riba” — a term referring to the Islamic prohibition of interest.
The Advertising Standards Authority said it received 75 complaints that the ads were offensive.
“The ads represented the expression that viewers’ money was ‘going up in flames’ and that images of burning money were commonly encountered,” the ASA said in a statement.
“However, regardless of whether viewers would have understood that message or understood it as a defiant act designed to show a challenge to financial institutions, the currencies which were burned in all of the ads were clearly visible as US dollar and euro banknotes.”
The advert also featured images of Muslim preacher Ismail ibn Musa Menk and Russian former professional mixed martial artist Khabib Abdulmanapovich Nurmagomedov.
Three of the posters showed Menk holding an open briefcase filled with US dollar and euro banknotes on fire, with two of them stating “Withdraw from Exploitation.”
Wahed defended the campaign, explaining that the burning banknotes symbolized money “going up in flames” due to inflation outpacing savings growth.
The company, which describe itself as an investment platform allowing consumers who were predominantly Muslim to invest in a manner which aligned with their faith and values, launched in the US in 2017 and is backed by the oil company Saudi Aramco and the French footballer Paul Pogba.
Wahed acknowledged that the currencies depicted in the ads could be viewed as symbols of national identity but argued that the imagery of burning money was a powerful reference to hyperinflation, a concept often depicted in popular culture through film and television.
A spokesperson added: “We understand that visuals like those included in our campaign can elicit strong reactions.
“While our intention was to spark thought and awareness, we recognize the importance of ensuring that messaging resonates positively with the diverse audiences that may consume them.”
The ASA said that the adverts would have been seen by many people, including people from the US and eurozone countries, who “would have viewed their nation’s currency as being culturally significant.
“Although we acknowledged Wahed Invest’s view that they had not directly criticized a specific group, and that depictions of burning banknotes were commonly encountered, we considered the burning of banknotes would have caused serious offense to some viewers,” the regulator said.
“We therefore concluded that the ads were likely to cause serious offense.”
